[Deepflow]

I'm going to ask you a lot of questions this time, in my continuing effort to take you seriously, it would be helpful if you would answer them. One by one would be best, in a similar fashion to the post I am about to make. If I and everyone else can actually understand what you are trying to say I think you will be more successful.

Originally Posted by Prover

You give a valid point of the objective-subjective duality being in terms of 3D-thinking. They are probably interrelated in the 4D sense.

OK... what do you mean by 3D and 4D in this context? What is each dimension? Who thinks 3D and who thinks 4D?

I just meant to emphasize a connection between nature and human beings.

How are human beings distinct from nature? Surely we are part of it. What exactly do you mean by nature? Just everything that isn't human, or just everything that isn't human that lives?

In my mind, all of our language/logic and creativity is used to simplify things that we have yet to understand. So when referring to those expressions, such as art, I use the term 'un-simple' to be logically consistent.

I disagree. Language, logic, and creativity are three very different things with different purposes.

Language is used to communicate, pretty obviously. It's a way of changing material things and concepts into easy to understand signs so that we can pass ideas from one person's mind into anothers and learn from each other. We also use it internally to think. You could say that this is a way of simplifying. The word "rock" is never going to be as "rocky" as a real rock.

Logic is completely different, it's the process by which we infer and deduce things starting from other things. It's more fundamental than language and completely, unreservedly correct when used properly. Whereas language is never completely "correct", logic always is. I also don't see how it's a way to simplify things, it's more a way to describe things, simplification is not necessary. Could you explain how you think that is?

Creativity could possibly be said to be a way to simplify things I guess, in some circumstances. It simplifies in some respects but quite often it adds to concepts, too.

I was using the movie twist because I thought it was an obvious example, so not to get complicated. A more phenomenal example is in regard to the golden ratio. This reoccurring proportion in nature is used in the various arts such architecture, painting, and music to synthesize an essence of symmetry. What's interesting is how science is the polar opposite of art, in general.

In what ways is science the opposite of art?

(Note: the golden ratio is a tool which essentially balances the scientific and artistic aspects). Science is mostly about reductive and deconstructive techniques to make "advancement", while art is more about reconstructive and abstract reflections. That's basically what I was saying about a shift of context. Do you not see what I mean now?

I'm afraid not. What exactly was it you were trying to say in the first place? Are you saying the golden ratio creates a shift in context because it mixes science and art? Why does that have to be a shift in context? Science and art are both parts of reality and to mingle them is perfectly natural. There is beauty in science and exactitude in art, does that always create a "shift in context"? Why is that concept necessary?

You also highlight something about the significance of art. Whether art seeks a faint purpose or not, I just noticed I was arguing for its relationship with Love precisely backwards.

You still really really need to define love as you're using it in this dialogue, why didn't you do that?

You said, "art for the sake of the good or the beautiful would be a far more popular opinion than some underlying purpose." I would argue that good and beautiful stem from something much more immense. That is love. Love brings about art. You cannot argue with that.

Why not? How does love bring about art?

Define it ffs.

I know many different emotions also bring about art, but my emphasis is on love. I would say this is a most common theme in artistic circles.

It's a common theme but why does the theme bring about art? I would assume it was more creativity that did that, with the theme merely shaping the nature of it.

It also relates nicely to the paradox I explained at the root of our feelings with love. I am aware of my generalizations, but there is no other way to build a short account of my reflections.

Then don't build a short account. If no one really understands you because you aren't specific enough then you're going to get people just insulting you and you're basically wasting everyone's time. I'm sorry, but you can't explain all these things within a few hundred words, these are the issues that the greatest minds of humanity have been pondering upon for millenia. If you're going to discuss them at the very least you need to be consistent and methodical, something you haven't been.

Please, respond to this point by point. Take the time that I have taken with this reply in yours, and we may begin to get somewhere. At the moment you may as well be spouting gibberish.